Wobbles in the Barriers: Arctic Oscillation (4)

This is a continuation of my series on the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. Links to background material and previous entries are at the end.

In the last entry I suggested that if you were on a bridge overlooking a swiftly flowing creek then you would notice that twigs floating in the water did not move across the current. They are carried downstream along the edge of the current. The purpose of that comparison was to demonstrate how fast-moving, concentrated flows have the effect of isolating one side of the creek from the other. This is true in the creek, and it is also true about jet streams in the atmosphere.

One way to understand the Arctic Oscillation is to think of it as the variation of an atmospheric jet stream. For the Arctic Oscillation the jet stream of interest is the southern edge of vortex of air that circulates around the North Pole (see previous entry). Air inside the vortex often has characteristics different from air outside it. Intuitively for the Arctic, there is colder air on the side toward the pole. If you look at trace gases, like ozone, they are different across the edge of the vortex. The takeaway idea is that the edge of the vortex is a barrier. It’s not a perfect barrier, but the air on one side is largely separated from the air on the other side. In this blog, I describe the difference between a strong and a weak vortex – which is the same as the difference between the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation.

Figure 1: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). Compare this perspective to Figure 1 in previous blog. This represents a strong, circular vortex centered over the pole, which encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex.

Figure 1 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the strong vortex case, when there is exceptionally low pressure at the pole. Low pressure is associated with counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere. This direction of rotation is called cyclonic. This strong vortex case is the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation. During this phase, the vortex aligns strongly with the rotation of the Earth, and there are relatively few wobbles of the edge of the vortex – the jet stream. I drew on the figure two points, X and Y. In this case, the point X is hot and the point Y is cold. It is during this phase when it is relatively warm and moist over, for example, the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Figure 2 compares a strong vortex and a weak vortex. In both cases, the circulation around a central point is counterclockwise or cyclonic. However, in the weak vortex case, the vortex does not align as strongly with the rotation of the Earth and there are places where the edge of vortex extends southwards. The vortex appears displaced from the pole; it is not centered over the pole.

Figure 2: Examples of a strong, circular vortex and a weak, more wavy vortex. See text for a more complete description.

Whether the vortex is stronger or weaker is determined by the atmospheric pressure at the pole. In the winter, an important factor that determines the circulation is the cooling that occurs at polar latitudes during the polar night.

What determines the waviness or wobbles at the edge of this vortex? The structure at the edge of vortex is strongly influenced by several factors. These factors include the structure of the high-pressure centers that are over the oceans and continents to the south of jet stream. One could easily imagine a strong high-pressure center over, for example, Iceland, pushing northward at the edge of the vortex. This might push a lobe of air characteristic of the middle latitude Atlantic Ocean northward. Since the edge of the vortex is something of a barrier, this high-pressure system would distort the edge of the vortex and, perhaps, push the vortex off the pole. This would appear as a displacement of the vortex and its cold air over, for example, Russia. If the high grew and faded, then this would appear as wobbles of the vortex.

Other factors that influence the waviness at the edge of the vortex are the mountain ranges and the thermal contrast between the continents and the oceans. The impact of mountains is easy to understand. Returning to the creek comparison used above, the mountains are like a boulder in the stream. The water bulges around and over the boulder; the air in the atmosphere bulges around and over the mountain ranges. The Rocky Mountains in the western half of North America are perfect examples of where there are often wobbles in the atmospheric jet stream.

Figure 3: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). This represents a weak, wavy, wobbly vortex displaced from the pole. The vortex encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex. (definition of vortex)

Figure 3 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the weak vortex case, when the low pressure at the pole is not as low as average and the pressure is much higher than the strong vortex case of Figure 1. This weak vortex case is the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. During this phase, the alignment of the vortex with the rotation of the Earth is less prominent, and there are wobbles of the edge of the vortex – the jet stream. In this case, the point X is cold and the point Y is hot. It is during this phase where it is relatively cool and dry (but potentially snowy) over, for example, the eastern part of the United States.

These figures help to explain the prominent signal of the Arctic Oscillation discussed in the earlier entries (specifically, this blog). That is, when the vortex is weak and wobbly, then there are excursions of colder air to the south and warmer air to the north. This appears as waviness and is an important pattern of variability - warm, cold, warm, cold.

The impact of the changes in the structure of edge of the vortex does not end with these persistent periods of regional warm and cold spells. The edge of the vortex or the jet stream is also important for steering storms. Minimally, therefore, these changes in the edge of the vortex are expected to change the characteristics of how storms move. Simply, if the edge of the vortex has large northward and southward extensions, then storms take a longer time to move, for example, across the United States from the Pacific to the Atlantic Oceans. In the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation they just whip across. In the negative phase, the storms wander around a bit. A more complete discussion of this aspect of the role of the Arctic Oscillation will be in the next entry. (Note use of dramatic tension and the cliffhanger strategy of the serial.)

Quoting 254. Birthmark:I'm listening. I'm building one of your contraptions in my back yard. It's nearly finished. Just one question: Are those rubber ducks in the diagram? If so, is there a good wholesale outlet where I might acquire some at a reasonable price, because Toys'R'US is trying to scalp me?

How many do you need???? I will donate them since it will save the globe.....

This is the amount of heat we need to remove from the worlds oceans: "The yottajoule (YJ) is equal to one septillion (1024) joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius."

Problem is I have shown you how to remove this specific amount of excess heat but no one listens so now we are condemned to further warming...

I'm listening. I'm building one of your contraptions in my back yard. It's nearly finished. Just one question: Are those rubber ducks in the diagram? If so, is there a good wholesale outlet where I might acquire some at a reasonable price, because Toys'R'US is trying to scalp me?

To quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."In their study of media coverage of the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Media Matters for America found that nearly half of print media stories discussed that the warming of global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years. While this factoid is true, the question is, what does it mean?

Many popular climate myths share the trait of vagueness. For example, consider the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past. Well of course it has, but what does that tell us? It's akin to telling a fire investigator that fires have always happened naturally in the past. That would doubtless earn you a puzzled look from the investigator. Is the implication that because they have occurred naturally in the past, humans can't cause fires or climate change?

The same problem applies to the 'pause' (or 'hiatus' or better yet, 'speed bump') assertion. It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but what does that mean? One key piece of information that's usually omitted when discussing this subject is that the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that.

nergy accumulation within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971 to 2010. From the 2013 IPCC report.The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That's the only part of the climate for which the warming has 'paused'. As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

This is the amount of heat we need to remove from the worlds oceans: "The yottajoule (YJ) is equal to one septillion (1024) joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius."

Problem is I have shown you how to remove this specific amount of excess heat but no one listens so now we are condemned to further warming...

Quoting 244. FLwolverine:More baloney. More excuses. Look at all the stuff that's been posted here by Cochise and others. They aren't banned. Like I said, put it on your own blog. It's time to put up or ...

Yes... So just like cigarettes don't cause cancer now the naysayers will say they know more than the World Health Organization who says air pollution now causes cancer...

Oct. 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM ET

LONDON — What many commuters choking on smog have long suspected has finally been scientifically validated: air pollution causes lung cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer declared on Thursday that air pollution is a carcinogen, alongside known dangers such as asbestos, tobacco and ultraviolet radiation. The decision came after a consultation by an expert panel organized by IARC, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, which is based in Lyon, France.

"We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking," said Kurt Straif, head of the IARC department that evaluates cancer-causing substances.

IARC had previously deemed some of the components in air pollution such as diesel fumes to be carcinogens, but this is the first time it has classified air pollution in its entirety as cancer causing.

The risk to the individual is low, but Straif said the main sources of pollution are widespread, including transportation, power plants, and industrial and agricultural emissions.

Air pollution is a complex mixture that includes gases and particulate matter, and IARC said one of its primary risks is the fine particles that can be deposited deep in the lungs of people.

"These are difficult things for the individual to avoid," he said, observing the worrying dark clouds from nearby factories that he could see from his office window in Lyon. "When I walk on a street where there's heavy pollution from diesel exhaust, I try to go a bit further away," he said. "So that's something you can do."

The fact that nearly everyone on the planet is exposed to outdoor pollution could prompt governments and other agencies to adopt stricter controls on spewing fumes. Straif noted that WHO and the European Commission are reviewing their recommended limits on air pollution.

Previously, pollution had been found to boost the chances of heart and respiratory diseases.

The expert panel's classification was made after scientists analyzed more than 1,000 studies worldwide and concluded there was enough evidence that exposure to outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer.

In 2010, IARC said there were more than 220,000 lung cancer deaths worldwide connected to air pollution. The agency also noted a link with a slightly higher risk of bladder cancer.

Straif said there were dramatic differences in air quality between cities around the world and that the most polluted metropolises were in China and India, where people frequently don masks on streets to protect themselves. China recently announced new efforts to curb pollution after experts found the country's thick smog hurts tourism. Beijing only began publicly releasing data about its air quality last year.

"I assume the masks could result in a reduction to particulate matter, so they could be helpful to reduce personal exposure," Straif said. But he added that collective international action by governments was necessary to improve air quality. "People can certainly contribute by doing things like not driving a big diesel car, but this needs much wider policies by national and international authorities."

Other experts emphasized the cancer risk from pollution for the average person was very low — but virtually unavoidable.

"You can choose not to drink or not to smoke, but you can't control whether or not you're exposed to air pollution," said Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatics at Harvard University's School of Public Health. "You can't just decide not to breathe," she said. Dominici was not connected to the IARC expert panel.

A person's risk for cancer depends on numerous variables, including genetics, exposure to dangerous substances and lifestyle choices regarding issues such as drinking alcohol, smoking and exercising.

Dominici said scientists are still trying to figure out which bits of pollution are the most lethal and called for a more targeted approach.

"The level of ambient pollution in the U.S. is much, much lower than it used to be, but we still find evidence of cancer and birth defects," she said. "The question is: How are we going to clean the air even further?"

For a while now, I've considered climate change denial to be akin to superstition, which the Oxford Dictionaries site defines as "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences." I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of 'natural variabilit'. In this context, I find that 'natural variability' appears to be a synonym for supernatural influence'.

Why? Because they can’t explain it. Not just that: many seem to believe they are not obliged to do so, which is suspiciously convenient, and all too reminiscent of those who would claim they don't need to 'explain' God. In this, they share a view once expressed in a Guardian forum which, to this day, remains one of my favourite denialist non-sequiturs. When challenged, a poster calling himself Hamlet 4 insisted "I don’t need to prove climate change is caused by natural variability. It just is."

Quoting 238. FLwolverine:Oh, baloney! If you're so worried about getting banned, post it on your own blog. You know how to do that. Weaseling out like this just destroys whatever credibility you have left - looks like you have no faith in the stuff you keep spouting off!

Edited: hmmm... If they banned you that fast, it must have been really bad. Maybe it's best you don't post it anywhere. We've already seen a couple of your - ahem - ill-considered arguments.

If you have a different view with proven science to show..... there is censorship....

Oh, baloney! If you're so worried about getting banned, post it on your own blog. You know how to do that. Weaseling out like this just destroys whatever credibility you have left - looks like you have no faith in the stuff you keep spouting off!

Edited: hmmm... If they banned you that fast, it must have been really bad. Maybe it's best you don't post it anywhere. We've already seen a couple of your - ahem - ill-considered arguments.

Quoting 231. FLwolverine:From RationalWiki, a little background on Marc Morano, as a warmup for yoboi's promised bombshell this morning: Link

Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier (his fans call him a "climate realist"). He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center.

In 2004, he was one of the first "reporters" to hype the John Kerry swiftboating "story." In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his "Director of Communications." Morano's position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who "disagreed" with the consensus (a la Oregon Petition). Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website "Climate Depot." Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] Supposedly, he exposes the "lies" of the "warmists" and "scientific McCarthy-ites" (oh the irony!) who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find.

To quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."In their study of media coverage of the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Media Matters for America found that nearly half of print media stories discussed that the warming of global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years. While this factoid is true, the question is, what does it mean?

Many popular climate myths share the trait of vagueness. For example, consider the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past. Well of course it has, but what does that tell us? It's akin to telling a fire investigator that fires have always happened naturally in the past. That would doubtless earn you a puzzled look from the investigator. Is the implication that because they have occurred naturally in the past, humans can't cause fires or climate change?

The same problem applies to the 'pause' (or 'hiatus' or better yet, 'speed bump') assertion. It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but what does that mean? One key piece of information that's usually omitted when discussing this subject is that the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that.

nergy accumulation within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971 to 2010. From the 2013 IPCC report.The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That's the only part of the climate for which the warming has 'paused'. As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

From RationalWiki, a little background on Marc Morano, as a warmup for yoboi's promised bombshell this morning: Link

Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier (his fans call him a "climate realist"). He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center.

In 2004, he was one of the first "reporters" to hype the John Kerry swiftboating "story." In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his "Director of Communications." Morano's position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who "disagreed" with the consensus (a la Oregon Petition). Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website "Climate Depot." Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] Supposedly, he exposes the "lies" of the "warmists" and "scientific McCarthy-ites" (oh the irony!) who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find.

Without Plants, Earth Would Cook Under Billions of Tons of Additional Carbon

Enhanced growth of Earth's leafy greens during the 20th century has significantly slowed the planet's transition to being red-hot, according to the first study to specify the extent to which plants have prevented climate change since pre-industrial times. Researchers based at Princeton University found that land ecosystems have kept the planet cooler by absorbing billions of tons of carbon, especially during the past 60 years.

The planet's land-based carbon "sink" -- or carbon-storage capacity -- has kept 186 billion to 192 billion tons of carbon out of the atmosphere since the mid-20th century, the researchers report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. From the 1860s to the 1950s, land use by humans was a substantial source of the carbon entering the atmosphere because of deforestation and logging. After the 1950s, however, humans began to use land differently, such as by restoring forests and adopting agriculture that, while larger scale, is higher yield. At the same time, industries and automobiles continued to steadily emit carbon dioxide that contributed to a botanical boom. Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also is a plant nutrient.

Had Earth's terrestrial ecosystems remained a carbon source they would have instead generated 65 billion to 82 billion tons of carbon in addition to the carbon that it would not have absorbed, the researchers found. That means a total of 251 billion to 274 billion additional tons of carbon would currently be in the atmosphere. That much carbon would have pushed the atmosphere's current carbon dioxide concentration to 485 parts-per-million (ppm), the researchers report -- well past the scientifically accepted threshold of 450 (ppm) at which Earth's climate could drastically and irreversibly change. The current concentration is 400 ppm.

Although the researchers saw a strong historical influence of carbon fertilization in carbon absorption, that exchange does have its limits, Saleska said. If carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue rising, more vegetation would be needed to maintain the size of the carbon sink Shevliakova and her colleagues reported.

"There is surely some limit to how long increasing carbon dioxide can continue to promote plant growth that absorbs carbon dioxide," Saleska said. "Carbon dioxide is food for plants, and putting more food out there stimulates them to 'eat' more. However, just like humans, eventually they get full and putting more food out doesn't stimulate more eating."

Quoting 217. Birthmark:You are mistaken. No one can change the data. Nice try, though.

But if you don't like WfT, you can always go here. You'll have to download the graphs and then upload them to post them here, and you can only display one data set per graph, but there's the added advantage of having the trend numerically displayed with 2-sigma error.

I'll totally bring my laptop up to you so you can use my copy of SPSS and we can crunch some numbers over Loatian coffee. Sounds like a fun 15 minutes while the graphs run. :)

Quoting 219. Birthmark:"Everyone" saying something doesn't make it true. That's what data is for. It allows us to determine whether what "everyone" is saying holds up to scrutiny. In this case, it doesn't.

well I am turning in and I have been holding the bombshell that will show what is going on tomm get some rest ya will need it.... as always enjoyed the convo...

Quoting 217. Birthmark:You are mistaken. No one can change the data. Nice try, though.

But if you don't like WfT, you can always go here. You'll have to download the graphs and then upload them to post them here, and you can only display one data set per graph, but there's the added advantage of having the trend numerically display with 2-sigma error.

there is a 15 yr pause everyone is saying it even the AGW gang..... man causes 10-15 % with co2....the sky is not falling the ice is growing....

anyonecan go to wood for trees and create anything the like....come on birthmark....

You are mistaken. No one can change the data. Nice try, though.

But if you don't like WfT, you can always go here. You'll have to download the graphs and then upload them to post them here, and you can only display one data set per graph, but there's the added advantage of having the trend numerically displayed with 2-sigma error.

The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time… aka fossil fuels. (Link)

Statement: I also want to state that I do believe in climate change but that its earth natural cycles and we have seen these events before..

The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time… aka fossil fuels. (Link)

Quoting 208. ncstorm:This is my second time posting in Rood's blog so please be kind..

Questions??

So If I refute a claim in here with a graph and you then in turn refute my claim with another graph, who would be right?

A good question and a fair one. The answer is...that depends upon what the graph is showing --does it support the claim being made? Is the graph in context or just a snippet? Is the graph honest?

Quoting 208. ncstorm:Are there any opposing website to GW consider legit to your thinking because I dont want to even post something that will immediately get called a lie even though it will have truth to it?

No, there is no such reputable site. The reason for that is that there is no competing theory to AGW that explains the current warming. Such sites, in the rare instances in which they post actual science, invariably post non-representative papers (frequently from dicey "journals"), or they use legitimate science incorrectly (frequently over the objections of the authors they are claiming).

Quoting 208. ncstorm:Statement: I also want to state that I do believe in climate change but that its earth natural cycles and we have seen these events before..